From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Warren <bwarren@qstreams.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:37:49 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] PPC4xx: Add Ethernet 1000BASE-X	support
 for	PPC4xx
In-Reply-To: <1193685290.1462.19.camel@ld0161-tx32>
References: <472611C8.4050107@arlinx.com>
	<47261977.4020009@qstreams.com>	<47262967.8070307@arlinx.com>
	<1193685290.1462.19.camel@ld0161-tx32>
Message-ID: <4726368D.9090108@qstreams.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Jon Loeliger wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 13:41, Larry Johnson wrote:
>
>   
>> Would it be better to run Lindent on the original files, post those as
>> changes, and then post a second patch with the new material?
>>     
>
> In my opinion, yes, please.
>
>   
>> BTW, I've noticed that the "Lindent -pcs" format is used inconsistently
>> within files.  Since I'm also making changes in Linux, it's hard to
>> remember whether to type "foo(bar);" or "foo (bar);", 
>>     
>
> In my opinion, "foo (bar)" is bad style, and I prefer
> the Linux form, "foo(bar)".
>
> jdl
>
>   
Yeah, in Larry's patch, Lindent mostly created the 'bad-style' format. I 
thought the idea behind Lindent was that you didn't need to figure out 
all the appropriate switches for 'indent'. I don't know what '-pcs' 
does... Of course, my Lindent is old (c 2.6.19) and maybe it's been 
changed since then.

regards,
Ben